Oz movie is successful, Wicked movie unlikely

It's been estimated that Oz: The Great and Powerful has raked in $150 million over the weekend, making it the biggest opening weekend for a movie in 2013 and Disney has already confirmed a sequel. Surely this can only mean yet another delay with the Wicked movie? Surely the two studios won't want to make two films with similar characters?

I have yet to see the film, although I must say it looks very promising. I sincerely wish this doesn't delay Wicked. From what I've seen it seems to have a different atmosphere to that of the musical. Have you seen the film, or has someone else seen it? Are the stories similar?

Yes because Hollywood has never released two films with similar subject matter before. Please. One thing has nothing to do with the other. And if you didn't notice, that stupid Oz movie got some of the most crappy reviews ever.

I was thinking about this the other day. Will the general movie going public be interested in yet another prequel to Oz when there will have already been one (with another on its way) that they are following with invested time in the characters and story etc. The witches also feature with different names. If these movies are seen as official prequels to Wizard of Oz im not sure what Joe Public will feel about a musical movie telling a different story.

The musical version might then only appeal to the musical fans, and im not sure that will be enough to get it greenlighted.

But with a sequel in the works, and let's just say Oz II and Wicked are released close to each other, surely having a sequel to a prequel to The Wizard of Oz as well as another prequel to The Wizard of Oz, it'll confuse the hell out of people. Both Snow White's appealed to different audiences but I can imagine Wicked being aimed at the same sort of audience as Oz:TGAP? Also, like I said, Oz has had a huge intake over the weekend - reviews mean nothing. Twilight being a prime example of bad reviews but massive profits. Les Mis the original stage show being another.

i have to agree with this post - having seem the movie - which also explains some of the origins of the various things like the broom, Glinda's bubbles, the Lion, the scarecrow - in very different ways than Wicked. If I were a movie exec, I would think "someone beat me to the punch, need to move on". But that's just me.

If they can start the exact same Spider-Man story all over again a mere 10 years after a trilogy covering the tale began, the corporate entertainment industrial complex won't bat an eye at telling a similar tale to this one with a song that has been sung at school talent shows since it was unleashed upon an unsuspecting world.

"They care to blame and Iroquois be good news if they were." Come find us at https://twitter.com/NamoInExile

^^ I agree. I hope this doesn't stop them and if they do go forward with the Wicked movie, both the Oz sequel and Wicked will need to be careful of how they make the films and market them. I believe the success of the Oz movie will at least make Universal reconsider the Wicked film, at the end of the day - there's no rush for it.

I saw Oz: The Great and Powerful, this past weekend. I thought it dull and a waste of my time. To be fair, there are some interesting aspects to the film, like the open credits, the witches and even the final "battle", but this accounts for a very small fraction of the film. I thought Mr. Franco was absolutely dreadful in the title role. I had absolutely no investment into his character.

I hope that Wicked is still on. I suspect that Disney will make more "Oz" movies based on the success of this one. I can only hope that they will be far more interesting than this one.

Wicked is a far better prequel in all respects, but that doesn't mean that the timing isn't unfortunate for a film version.

Yes, there are obvious similarities in the subject, but also the specifics of it:

Witches are all younger, prettier, playing into an unrequited love scenario that drives a lot of their motivations.

The best thing a film version of Wicked can do is stay the hell away from the 1939 MGM film in all ways, other than the ones already written into its story, which are subtle by comparison to this current (mediocre) film homage---particularly with the visual look (art direction, costumes, and makeup).

I think if it's approached in a completely different way, people will be open to (what they will probably perceive anyway as) a "reboot" of the Oz prequel idea.

I saw the movie yesterday and it is SO FAR DIFFERENT from WICKED the musical or book that there is only a "green girl," a wizard and a blond witch named Glinda involved. The story in OZ even completly contradicts that Elphaba... er Theodora...Ugh, never mind LOL

They are totally different characters, storyline... EVERYTHING about it is different.

"TO LOVE ANOTHER PERSON IS TO SEE THE FACE OF GOD"- LES MISERABLES---
"THERE'S A SPECIAL KIND OF PEOPLE KNOWN AS SHOW PEOPLE... WE'RE BORN EVERY NIGHT AT HALF HOUR CALL!"--- CURTAINS